References: [2005] EWHC 1482 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bean J
Ratio: The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates had been entitled to find that he had been driving, having had control, if only partial, of the vehicle. The prosecutor had, after the magistrates retired, asked them to return to allow him to add further evidence as to the defendant’s continued disqualification pending taking an exteded driving test. ‘It is also still very clearly the law in the Crown Court . . that once a jury have been sent out to consider their verdict, no evidence may be called, and the rule is very strictly enforced . . the justices were not entitled to allow the prosecution to adduce the further evidence after they had retired to consider their verdict. ‘ The appeal succeeded.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 103(1)(b) 143
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina v MacDonagh CA ([1974] RTR 372, [1974] 1 QB 448)
The Road Traffic Acts do not define the word ‘drive’ and in its simplest meaning it refers to a person using the driver’s controls for the purpose of directing the movement of the vehicle. It matters not that the vehicle is not moving under its own . . - Cited – Cyril Whitfield v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [1997] EWHC Admin 1007)
. . - Cited – Webb v Leadbetter QBD ([1966] 1 WLR 245)
One of two witnesses whom the prosecution desired to call at the hearing of an information had not arrived. The available witness was called. The prosecution case closed. The defendant gave evidence and his case closed. The justices had retired to . . - Cited – Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn (Bailii, [2000] EWHC Admin 316)
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . . - Cited – Tuck v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 728 (Admin))
The defendant appealed a conviction for exceeding the gross permitted weight on a goods vehicle. The magistrates having heard the case, the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, the prosecution having failed to bring evidence as to the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 01 June 2019
Ref: 228906
The post Traves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jun 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.